Mit Romney being LDS (Mormon)

[MindFreak]

Originally Posted by B4n3 0n3

Also, I don't like Hilary either hopefully Obama will beat her.

amen to that brother! anybody but hilary. ANYBODY

[Weee]

Originally Posted by MindFreak

all terrorists are muslim.

WTF?

friendly printed version:A Brief History of Terrorism

The English word ‘terrorism’ comes from the regime de la terreur that prevailed in France from 1793-1794

terrorism increasingly referred to the oppressive measures imposed by various totalitarian regimes, most notably those in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Stalinist Russia.

Through the 1960s and 1970s, the numbers of those groups that might be described as terrorist swelled to include not only nationalists, but those motivated by ethnic and ideological considerations. The former included groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (and its many affiliates), the Basque ETA, and the Provisional Irish Republican Army, while the latter comprised organizations such as the Red Army Faction (in what was then West Germany) and the Italian Red Brigades.

Contemporary Terrorism

Today, terrorism influences events on the international stage to a degree hitherto unachieved. Largely, this is due to the attacks of September 2001. Since then, in the United States at least, terrorism has largely been equated to the threat posed by al Qaeda ‑ a threat inflamed not only by the spectacular and deadly nature of the Sept. 11 attacks themselves, but by the fear that future strikes might be even more deadly and employ weapons of mass destruction.

Whatever global threat may be posed by al Qaeda and its franchisees, the U.S. view of terrorism nonetheless remains, to a degree, largely ego-centric – despite the current administration’s rhetoric concerning a so-called “Global War Against Terrorism.” This is far from unique. Despite the implications that al Qaeda actually intends to wage a global insurgency, the citizens of countries such as Colombia or Northern Ireland (to name but two of those long faced with terrorism) are likely more preoccupied with when and where the next FARC or Real Irish Republican Army attack will occur rather than where the next al Qaeda strike will fall.

As such considerations indicate, terrorism goes beyond al Qaeda, which it not only predates but will also outlive. Given this, if terrorism is to be countered most effectively, any understanding of it must go beyond the threat currently posed by that particular organization. Without such a broad-based approach, not only be will terrorism be unsolvable (to paraphrase Pillar) but it also risks becoming unmanageable.

[MindFreak]

im talking about terrorism today. since the 90s. i dont care what "terrorism" happened 50 or 100 years ago. it would be pretty hard to argue that most (if not all) acts of terrorism in the last 15 years have not been committed by muslims. its the truth but i guess the political correctness police say i cant say it.


"A recently completed Dutch study of 242 Islamic radicals convicted or accused of planning terrorist attacks in Europe from 2001 to 2006 found that most were men of Arab descent who had been born and raised in Europe and came from lower or middle-class backgrounds. They ranged in age from 16 to 59 at the time of their arrests; the average was 27. About one in four had a criminal record. "

[Weee]

You said ALL, also, the study you pointed out was of islamic terrorists... of course they're mostly arab.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html


This is way off topic so i'm done.

[MindFreak]

yes, we did high jack this post and are way off topic. ill glady discuss this if you start another thread but again you would have a very hard time trying to argue that most (if not all) of the terrorists today are not muslim. that link you put there proves my point. thanks. look at that list. of all that are 1990 or later the vast majority are muslim people.

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by Cammo

I don't have the faintest idea who Mit Romney is but I do know that the mormons are very persistant at trying to push their beliefs down other peoples throats - there is already enough of this type of behaviour in regards to world politics as it is - any morons (sorry....I mean mormons) in a power of position is likely to abuse their power to force their beliefs even further on the public.

They dont force beliefs down others throats, but are persistent in inviting others to learn about the church. theres a huge difference there. I was there, trust me. we invite, and if we are not accepted we move on. simple as that. One of the unwritten rules is "no means no". No one like Jesus, or muhammod or ghandi or anyone forced religion on anyone. they invited. Christ said "come follow me". Those that didnt want to, he let do what they wanted. The mormon church is no different. Those that do, and i know there are some, constantly bug other people about it are out of line.

Mit Romney already declared he would in no way associate and use his potential office of president to promote the church in anyway. It will undoubtedly get lots of publicity, but thats not his choice nor can he do anything about it.

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by MindFreak

amen to that brother! anybody but hilary. ANYBODY

Exactly. I will move to Canada if hilary clinton is president.

[Chauncey11]

Originally Posted by BUFFLURP

Exactly. I will move to Canada if hilary clinton is president.

Do you really think that Hillary would be any worse than our current President???? Just the fact that Bill Clinton will be some sort of an influence puts her leaps and bounds better than what we have now.

[MindFreak]

Originally Posted by Chauncey11

Do you really think that Hillary would be any worse than our current President???? .

she would be worse than anybody. a complete disaster. the current president isn't running in the next election so the choice isnt hiliary or bush. what you're saying is youll vote for her because you think she will be better than bush. that really doesnt make sense. you should be asking if she would be worse than anybody else running. i say absolutely. no matter who runs against she is the worst choice.

[MindFreak]

Originally Posted by BUFFLURP

They dont force beliefs down others throats, but are persistent in inviting others to learn about the church. theres a huge difference there. I was there, trust me. we invite, and if we are not accepted we move on. simple as that. One of the unwritten rules is "no means no". No one like Jesus, or muhammod or ghandi or anyone forced religion on anyone. they invited. Christ said "come follow me". Those that didnt want to, he let do what they wanted. The mormon church is no different. Those that do, and i know there are some, constantly bug other people about it are out of line.

Mit Romney already declared he would in no way associate and use his potential office of president to promote the church in anyway. It will undoubtedly get lots of publicity, but thats not his choice nor can he do anything about it.

i dont think any president should promote the church . i dont believe Romney will. however, right now (and this could definetly change) out of the candidates offically running i have to say i would vote for Rudy.

[BiggerGuns=LongerDrives]

Originally Posted by Chauncey11

Do you really think that Hillary would be any worse than our current President???? Just the fact that Bill Clinton will be some sort of an influence puts her leaps and bounds better than what we have now.

I agree!!!!

[Papasmurf]

Originally Posted by BiggerGuns=LongerDrives

I agree!!!!

I disagree- george bush's failures should have no comparison in this election. There are two candidates that will be better that bush, and Obama is clearly the better of the two.

[BiggerGuns=LongerDrives]

Originally Posted by Papasmurf

I disagree- george bush's failures should have no comparison in this election. There are two candidates that will be better that bush, and Obama is clearly the better of the two.

His failures are what will FUEL this election...
The winner will be the person with the best "Exit plan" out of Iraq. That's what the American people want.
The focus of the election promises will be "clean up" for Bushes miserable failings as a president.

They can dig up Brigham Youngs body and place him in the oval office and he would do a better job than Bush..... and I'd vote for the carcaus too.

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by BiggerGuns=LongerDrives

His failures are what will FUEL this election...
The winner will be the person with the best "Exit plan" out of Iraq. That's what the American people want.
The focus of the election promises will be "clean up" for Bushes miserable failings as a president.

I have to agree with this.

Although, i do have to say that with what Bush has had to deal with, it hasnt been utterly horrible IMO. War is war, and taking out Sadaam was good for the whole world. There are Iraqis that escaped to europe that pray for Bush everyday that he will continue to eliminate evil people in iraq. I know because i know some personally. I think John Kerry would have increased middle eastern tension between us and also with the Jews. Had we immediately removed out the troops, terrorist attacks would have probably happened more here and in britain. And not mention horrible slaughter between the muslim groups in iraq. Bush has tried his best to help along the war. i don't doubt that. Although his efforts have "failed" and made many people mad, he is a good guy i think. Stupid? that's arguable, and i would like to see a solid plan to get the troops out as well. And for us to say this or that about the war doesnt really matter because the general public doesnt have the information needed to make real judgement. Bush does, so the better judgement and trust has been placed on his shoulders. the country commited to honoring his judgement when they voted for him, and that is what we have to accept whether we agree or not.

Initially going to war was not a mistake, but the current proceedings do need to be changed indefinitely.

Now, with having said that about bush whether you agree with me or not, hilary clinton is satan. She is a fool, and no one in their right minds will actually vote for her and truly wish her to run the country. I'd rather have condaleeza rice than that *****. Hilary would not be an improvement over george bush. other candidates of either party will be an improvement over Bush, but not Clinton.

Romney supports bushes increased troop count in iraq. Although at first it sounds ridiculous because we want troops out, an overwhelming amount of soldiers will actually cool things down over ther as far as bombings go (hopefully). the work they are doing will get done faster. Do I agree with this plan? not exactly. Some aspects of it sound o.k. Others do not. If it ends up being worse than current, which i doubt it will, the congress will revoke the plan and call troops home in the snap of a finger. If it ends up working, bush will leave on a good note. I will trust romney's judgement more than Bushes, and way more than clintons. I also wouldnt mind Rudy or Obama. I also look at a person's moral standing. if they accept or disapprove of radical behavior and "freedom" to do what ever the hell you want if that makes sense. like legalizing marijuana, gay marraige, abortion and things of that sort.

I am republican, but if a democratic candidate fits my bill for trustworthy, and the republican candidate doesn't, i would vote democratic. Party doesnt matter so much to me as whether the person is honest in their dealings. Clinton is a ***** and a liar. I do not trust her at all.

They can dig up Brigham Youngs body and place him in the oval office and he would do a better job than Bush..... and I'd vote for the carcaus too.

LOL!!!!!!! that is freaking hilarious. Do you think the govt. could get away with grave robbing? i do.

[mitchcumstein]

Originally Posted by BiggerGuns=LongerDrives

His failures are what will FUEL this election...
The winner will be the person with the best "Exit plan" out of Iraq. That's what the American people want.
The focus of the election promises will be "clean up" for Bushes miserable failings as a president.

They can dig up Brigham Youngs body and place him in the oval office and he would do a better job than Bush..... and I'd vote for the carcaus too.

I think theres one issue that keeps costing the Dems the election year after year and its lack of family values and basic morality. Once they can make a believeble stand in that department they have a chance. For now, id have to say theyre fvcked. They have a woman canditate and a guy whos name rhymes with Osama. Looks like its 4 more years for the republicans.

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by mitchcumstein

I think theres one issue that keeps costing the Dems the election year after year and its lack of family values and basic morality. Once they can make a believeble stand in that department they have a chance. For now, id have to say theyre fvcked. They have a woman canditate and a guy whos name rhymes with Osama. Looks like its 4 more years for the republicans.

Exactly. Morals are very important, whether people think so or not. I had a women comment to me one time " I don't understand why america still has this idea of being morally correct. We are supposed to have freedom, right?" I told her she was the dumbest person i had ever met. She is one of those feminazi b!tches, who think they should be able to do whatever they want without consequence.

morals are what keep peace. Trying to be "good" and doing "what's right" should never be put aside, and it slowly is. our society's morals are degrading year after year. just look at regular television. it's disgusting what they show. CSI shows the most gruesome murders in pure form. Even if they are "fake" it is corrupting society horribly. Yes, i do watch it myself, but children should not see these types of things. period. and they do everyday. execution style shootings, stabbing people in the face, slitting throats, rape. they show it all. how horrible is this? pornographic material is so easily accessed, any child can look at it if they want. Porno is also highly corrupting to younger people and older people alike. I lock my son's computer out of anything potentially harmful, and i always know what he watches on TV. Teaching my son moral values like honesty, integrity, moral/sexual cleanliness, and education are top priority. I thank the lord everyday he is an innocent, obedient and strong willed person. He knows about all the corrupt things, and has knowledge of sexual matters, but he is very tight against doing anything wrong. and he does it of his own freewill. If i ask him if he wants to go grab some smokes jokingly, and he will respond " Pshhh, Dad, smoking is bad. I'll never smoke. it's disgusting and smells nasty."

This is one reason I am in favor of Romney, is because he shares my values of morality, which i find to be very important. I also find the country could highly benefit from high moral values. Clinton does not have the same moral values that this country needs.

Adn all the hot topics of debate are moral issues.

Gay marraige, abortion, etc. They are of extremely low moral value (of which i consider to be plain wrong) , which is why people get upset over trying to push the issue.

[Chauncey11]

Originally Posted by BUFFLURP

I have to agree with this.

Although, i do have to say that with what Bush has had to deal with, it hasnt been utterly horrible IMO. War is war, and taking out Sadaam was good for the whole world. There are Iraqis that escaped to europe that pray for Bush everyday that he will continue to eliminate evil people in iraq. I know because i know some personally. I think John Kerry would have increased middle eastern tension between us and also with the Jews. Had we immediately removed out the troops, terrorist attacks would have probably happened more here and in britain. And not mention horrible slaughter between the muslim groups in iraq. Bush has tried his best to help along the war. i don't doubt that. Although his efforts have "failed" and made many people mad, he is a good guy i think. Stupid? that's arguable, and i would like to see a solid plan to get the troops out as well. And for us to say this or that about the war doesnt really matter because the general public doesnt have the information needed to make real judgement. Bush does, so the better judgement and trust has been placed on his shoulders. the country commited to honoring his judgement when they voted for him, and that is what we have to accept whether we agree or not.

Initially going to war was not a mistake, but the current proceedings do need to be changed indefinitely.

Now, with having said that about bush whether you agree with me or not, hilary clinton is satan. She is a fool, and no one in their right minds will actually vote for her and truly wish her to run the country. I'd rather have condaleeza rice than that *****. Hilary would not be an improvement over george bush. other candidates of either party will be an improvement over Bush, but not Clinton.

Romney supports bushes increased troop count in iraq. Although at first it sounds ridiculous because we want troops out, an overwhelming amount of soldiers will actually cool things down over ther as far as bombings go (hopefully). the work they are doing will get done faster. Do I agree with this plan? not exactly. Some aspects of it sound o.k. Others do not. If it ends up being worse than current, which i doubt it will, the congress will revoke the plan and call troops home in the snap of a finger. If it ends up working, bush will leave on a good note. I will trust romney's judgement more than Bushes, and way more than clintons. I also wouldnt mind Rudy or Obama. I also look at a person's moral standing. if they accept or disapprove of radical behavior and "freedom" to do what ever the hell you want if that makes sense. like legalizing marijuana, gay marraige, abortion and things of that sort.

I am republican, but if a democratic candidate fits my bill for trustworthy, and the republican candidate doesn't, i would vote democratic. Party doesnt matter so much to me as whether the person is honest in their dealings. Clinton is a ***** and a liar. I do not trust her at all.



LOL!!!!!!! that is freaking hilarious. Do you think the govt. could get away with grave robbing? i do.

I believe you hit every single republican talking point there is with your post.
first off, no way that America is safer by attacking a country which would'nt have stood a chance against the US and ended up having no WMD's.wat he did was just disrupted the middle east even more and made Iraq and Iraqis WORSE OFF than if Saddam was in power. It's a civil war over there, does'nt really get much worse than that.
And Bush has added to the evil people in Iraq not decreased them. The country is full of insurgents on both sides and a handful of terrorists all in the middle of a war zone.
And It also looks like y fell for the"let's fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" line of crap. Like the enemy is'nt capabale of fighting us on both fronts. Bush has added 10X as many terrorists than we have killed.And Bush being a Good guy?? With ****ting on our constitution and condoning torture??? Yea, he's a great guy.
I really wish i could live as blindly as you and believe that since Bush is privy to more information than we should take him at his word. I'm sure yopu would'nt have given that same confidence to H